I don't want a confrontation, I was just trying to voice some concerns I
have. If everyone is in agreement that the way things have been done is the
best way they could have possibly been done, and that nothing should be
changed now that the project owners and the rules for making contributions
are fundamentally different, then by all means continue.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ryan Riley <ryan.riley at panesofglass.org>wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Mike Moore <blowmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:30 AM, Tomas Matousek <<Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com>
>>Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> I don’t understand how three distinct github repos that I need to map into
>> some directories on my disk whose relative location to each other is
>> hardcoded in some scripts in each are better than a single repo that has a
>> well-defined structure.
>>>> You are speaking like someone responsible for both languages and the DLR.
>>>> And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to
> contribute to IronRuby and failed because of a bloated project structure.
> I'm sure there are several people who would be willing to help you figure
> out what's wrong. Where's the repo with your contribution?
>
I don't understand. Is this some sort of challenge?
> I'm making a suggestion as someone really only interested in IronRuby. The
>> repo isn't called "DynamicLanguages", it's called "IronRuby", which is at
>> best confusing. If only git had some way to define a link to another
>> repository as some sort of sub module...
>>>> Ah yes, and if only github had something like forking ...
>
I don't think changing the structure in forked repos would do anyone any
good, as it would make sharing contributions between repos difficult.
> As a Rubyist I'd like to run a rake task to build to each defined target
>> and run the RubySpecs. It wouldn't replace xbuild, just automate it. I don't
>> understand the pushback to this idea.
>>>> If you want to create and maintain these, I'm sure no one would complain. I
> don't understand the push back to the idea that the three core contributors
> were a little tired of building IronRuby and maintaining two build
> approaches. I also don't understand a Rubyist's failure to see an
> opportunity to contribute rake tasks to a project.
>
I think you are confused to where I am puzzled about resistance. It is not
about having rake tasks. I agree that they are easy enough to add and
maintain, and that whining about them would be quite ridiculous. That's not
my point, however. My point is that there would be more contributions if it
were not a single monolithic repository. I also think most of the historic
benefits of having a monolithic repo can be mitigated with submodules and an
automated build and integration server.
Feel free to disagree.
Why not make a dedicated repo for IronRuby free of the ancillary projects
>> and geared to someone like me? And likewise make the IronPython repo
>> friendly to our Pythonic friends?
>>>> IronPython already has a separate repo at http://ironpython.codeplex.com/> .
>
I dunno, it looks really, really similar to the IronRuby repo on GitHub to
me. Is this synched with the GitHub repo? Is this where all the "Project
Merlin" changes are coming from?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20101023/ba4920da/attachment-0001.html>